You are on page 1of 27

THINKING OUTSIDE THE

CARBON BOX:
Science and Policy Issues of
Tropical Deforestation-
Climate Feedbacks
Charlotte Kendra G. Castillo
Purdue University
Purdue Climate Change Research Center
In cooperation with
The Manila Observatory (MO)
World Agro-forestry Centre (ICRAF)
Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and
Degradation (REDD) -

Only half the


picture?
Combined Climate and Carbon-Cycle
Effects on
Large-scale Deforestation
(Bala et al. PNAS Vol. 14, No. 6, 17 April 2007)

• Global deforestation: 1113 ppmv CO2


(vs. 732 ppmv in Standard) but cooler by
~0.3K.
• Combined carbon cycle and biophysical
effects of deforestation in different
regions:
Tropical Temperate Boreal
net warming of +0.7K near-zero temperature net cooling of -0.8K
change of -0.04K

+199 ppmv CO2 +110 ppmv CO2 +5 ppmv CO2


422 PgC released 316 PgC released 80 PgC released
The ‘Whole’ Picture
Impacts of Deforestation
WARMING: COOLING:
• Adding CO2 to • Increasing surface
atmosphere albedo, thus
• Eliminating possible decreasing radiation
carbon storage in trees absorbed at surface.
• Decreasing
evapotranspiration
 triggers changes in
water vapor, clouds,
lapse rates which affect
local and global
temperature changes.
Carbon Cycle Effects Biophysical Effects

• Manifested globally • Most strongly felt at


regional scales; need
more research to
establish
teleconnections.
• Lag between cause and
effect • “Instant” impact (e.g.
• Justification for albedo)
promoting
• Not considered in
reforestation/afforestati
on policy

How do we weigh/trade off impacts of different


scales in climate policy???
Gaps in current
research:
• Deforestation applied
unrealistically in models
– Rates and spatial patterns may
matter given integration of
biogeophysics with carbon cycle.
• No common metrics.
– Crucial also from a policy
standpoint.
• Human dimension not yet
coupled to earth system models.
Research Objectives
• Full earth system integration using
Community Climate System Model
ver.4 (atm, lnd, ice, ocn)
• More realistic deforestation via annual
forcing
• Analyze sensitivity of “transitional”
and equilibrium climate to different
deforestation pathways (rate +
preservation target)
PHASE 1
Offline Biosphere Sensitivity
Analysis:
•Sensitivity to Preservation

Researc
Target
•Sensitivity to Deforestation
Rates

h Flow
•Sensitivity to Spatial Patterns
•Sensitivity to Region

PHASE 2
Coupled Physical System
Sensitivity Analysis:
•Sensitivity to Preservation
Target
•Sensitivity to Deforestation
Rates
•Sensitivity to Spatial Patterns
•Sensitivity to Region Development Socio-economic
Policy Implications of Optimization Schemes for
Sensitivity Analysis Forest Preservation vs.
Deforestation-for-Agriculture
Decisions.

PHASE 3
Integration of Socio-Economic
Scheme into Climate System
and Modeling Feedbacks and
Impacts.

Policy Implications of
Integrated Modeling
Preliminary Fully-
Coupled Results
• CCSM3
– Reflects impact of biophysics on
climate
– +Dynamic Global Veg Model
(DGVM)
– Contrast sensitivity to 10% vs.
1% annual deforestation rate.
– 10% preservation target.
– Applied across tropical band
(30deg S to 30degN).
10% Annual Deforestation 1% Annual Deforestation

• Continue reaping • Upfront costs required


economic benefits (for to slow deforestation.
~20 years until
preservation target is • Deforestation
hit). continues longer
(~70-80 years) though
at a slower rate.
• Deforestation ceases
sooner. Land cover
and climate also
“stabilize” sooner.
Both scenarios have the same preservation target
but will the “transitional” climate differ?
SE Asia

COOLING?
SE Asia

WARMING?
10%

control 10%

1%

1%

control
control

1%

10%

10%

control

1%
Preliminary Findings
• How a preservation target is
reached may be as
important as the target
itself.

– Effect of pathways more


distinguishable regionally
• In SURFACE TEMPs
• In MOISTURE fluxes.
Preliminary Findings
• Biophysics vs. biophysics
– Increase in albedo vs. decrease
in latent heat flux

• Biogeochemistry vs.
biogeochemistry
– Transient increase in
photosynthetic uptake due to
grasses vs. loss of carbon
stocks from mature trees
Preliminary Findings
• However, full interaction
between biophysics and
carbon cycle still uncertain
– biosphere-atmosphere C
fluxes not captured.
Both adaptation and mitigation efforts
need to be informed by
comprehensive, fully-coupled modeling
of the earth system leading to
desired/prescribed scenarios.

Do we need a “climate effectiveness


index”?
Future Work
Integrate with socio-economic module

Land cover
decisions Economic agent
optimization
module
(rapid response)
CCSM4 +
Annual Adjustmen
DGVM
climate ts
data
General
x-year equilibrium model
climate (slow response)
averages
THANK YOU!
Acknowledgements
• Kevin Robert Gurney1,3 , Matt Huber1,3 , Gerald Shively2,3
1
Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue
University;
2
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
3
Purdue Climate Change Research Center (PCCRC)

• Manila Observatory
• World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), Philippines